Pastor's Blog

Saturday, August 1, 2015

The sexual revolution, which began in the 1960s and continues unabated today, is first and foremost a revolt against maturity. A central aspect of maturity is the willingness to take responsibility for the consequences of one’s behavior. But the ultimate goal of the sexual revolution is to enjoy all the pleasures of sex with none of its responsibilities: sex anytime, anywhere, with anyone, by any means, without commitment, without emotional attachment, without risk to life, health, or pocketbook, but especially without the risk of having children.

Why especially without the risk of having children? Because raising a child is the ultimate responsibility. And the troublesome thing about taking responsibility is that doing so necessarily requires a self-limitation of personal freedom. A single man has greater personal freedom than a man with a wife and child. He may use his time and energy and money in any way that pleases him. Not so if he has a wife to care for and a child to raise. His time and money are no longer his own.

To achieve the sexual utopia the revolutionaries are after—all the pleasures of sex with none of its responsibilities—it has been necessary to fundamentally transform the law and all the most basic institutions of society: the family, the church, the school, the workplace, and the state. This transformation has been going on now for quite some time and is very nearly complete. It is no longer necessary to think of the family as consisting of a husband and wife with their children. A family can be any group of people who love each other. The church has largely capitulated to the demands of the revolution by refusing to uphold Biblical sexual ethics in its teaching and discipline. Public schools instruct younger and younger children how to perform a variety of sex acts and make birth control available to their students. Businesses must toe the line and be supportive of the new sexual ethic or face discrimination lawsuits. And increasingly the state enables the revolution by casting itself into the role of the indulgent parent, by not only providing food, shelter, education, and healthcare for its dependent children who don’t wish to grow up, but also by protecting them from the consequences of their sexual misbehavior. Hence the commitment to keep abortion legal. No means in pursuit of the revolutionary end is to be neglected, not even child sacrifice.

Thursday, July 30, 2015

A lot of attention has been
given the last few weeks to a some videos
released by The Center for Medical Progress. The videos show representatives of
Planned Parenthood trading in the body parts of aborted babies. It’s a ghastly
and ghoulish business. But to hear some people speak, the outrage is
entirely misplaced. It’s not the crushing and dismemberment of the youngest and
most vulnerable human beings among us that should disturb us, but the fact that
the frightful proceedings should ever be brought to light.

Watching Planned Parenthood and
its media and celebrity apologists attempt to deflect criticism reminds me of
one of Jesus’ more humorous—but scathing—word
pictures:the one in which he accused
certain hypocrites of straining out gnats and swallowing camels (Matt. 23:24). The
image is designed to point out the pretentious hypocrisy of paying scrupulous attention
to relatively inconsequential matters while ignoring fundamental moral concerns.
Jesus set up the striking image by pronouncing woe upon those who diligently
tithed the smallest garden herbs like mint and dill and cumin, but neglected
the very heart and soul of the law:justice, mercy, and faithfulness.

Watching the whole Planned
Parenthood debacle convinces me that there is a whole lotta camel-swallowing
going on. Below, I offer a few tips to help
readers determine if they too might be straining out gnats while swallowing
camels…I mean aside from the painful lump in their throats.

You might be
straining out gnats and swallowing camels if…

You object to the deception
involved in gaining undercover video of Planned Parenthood representatives discussing
the crushing and dismemberment of preborn children in order to harvest their
organs, but do not object to the
crushing, dismemberment, and organ harvesting

You object to the “tone” of
the discussion in the videos, but not to the deeds being discussed

You find the discussion of the
acquisition of fetal body parts gross but do
not find it morally objectionable

You quibble about whether
Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of the children they kill in utero or
whether they are simply being reimbursed “to cover costs associated with
collecting and transporting the tissue”

You use an "ends justifies the means" argument in order to defend the killing of unborn
children in the hope of using their harvested organs to find a cure
for cancer and other diseases

And while we’re at it, let’s toss this in,
too: You might be straining at gnats and
swallowing camels if…

You feel more moral outrage by
the killing
of a single lion (no matter how beloved) than by the killing of
3,000 human beings every day

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Alongside
every religion lies some political opinion which is linked to it by affinity.
If the human mind is allowed to follow its own bent, it will regulate political
society and the City of God in the same uniform manner and will, I dare say,
seek to harmonize earth and heaven.

Tocqueville
is on to something here. I would argue, however, that the connection between
religion and political opinion is a stronger one than mere affinity. It is more
accurate to say that politics grows out
of religion. This is so regardless of the religion in question, even those
that are not usually recognized as such. The self-proclaimed secular man, for
instance, who is the first to shout, “Separation of church and state!” is in
reality no less religious than the most fundamental of Christian fundamentalists;
nor is he seeking any the less to “harmonize earth and heaven” in accordance
with his religious views. Their respective religions are quite different, but
their political enterprise is the same.

Monday, June 8, 2015

In his Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville makes an important observation about the power of the majority and its tendency to shame, intimidate, and silence those who speak the truth.

In America, the majority has staked
out a formidable fence around thought. Inside those limits a writer is free but
woe betide him if he dares to stray beyond them. Not that he need fear an
auto-da-fé but he is the victim of all kinds
of unpleasantness and everyday persecutions. A political career [or a ministerial
calling] is closed to him for he has offended the only power with the capacity
to give him an opening. He is denied everything, including renown. Before
publishing his views, he thought he had supporters; it seems he has lost them
once he has declared himself publicly; for his detractors speak out loudly and
those who think as he does, but without his courage, keep silent and slink
away. He gives in and finally bends beneath the effort of each passing day,
withdrawing into silence as if he felt ashamed at having spoken the truth.

It has been said, inaccurately of course, that the voice of the people (vox populi) is the voice of God (vox Dei). Nothing could be further from the truth. Faithfulness to God often (did I say often? How about usually) requires us to take a stand against the majority. May God give us the courage to do so.

Thursday, April 30, 2015

Jamestown has the distinction of being the first permanent English colony in North America. Not the first English colony ever, but the first to survive. It nearly floundered, however, because of a lack of willingness on the part of many colonists to work. But when all the the other members of the council were drowned at sea during a storm, Captain John Smith was left in charge and instituted some basic reforms, including the Biblical injunction, "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat" (2 Thess. 3:10).

The company was divided into squads of ten or
fifteen, and assigned to the necessary duties of the colony. Six hours each day
were devoted to their tasks, the rest in pastimes and merry exercises. But such
was the untowardness of many among them, to whom labor was equally new and
irksome, that our President was compelled to give them sharp counsel after his
peculiar fashion.

“Countryman,” he said, “the long experience of
our late miseries, I hope, is sufficient to persuade every one to a present
correction of himselfe. Thinke not that either my paines, nor the adventurers’
purses will ever maintain you in idlesse and sloathe. I speake not this to you
all, for divers of you I know deserve both honor and reward, much better than
is here to be had; but the greater part must be more industrious or starve;
however you have been heretofore tollerated by the authoritie of the Councell.
You see now that power resteth wholly in myselfe. You must obey this now for a
law, that he that will not work (except by sickness he is disabled) shall not
eate. The labours of thirtie or fortie honest and industrious men shall not be
consumed to maintain an hundred and fiftie idle loyterers. (The Life of Captain John Smith: The Founder of Virginia, pp. 283-284)

No welfare here, except for the disabled. Work, or die by your own indolence. Not surprisingly, the settlement began to prosper.

Tar, pitch, and potash, in considerable quantities,
rewarded their exertions; they produced some samples of glass; dug a well of excellent
water in the fort, which, till then, had been very much wanting; provided nets
and seines for taking fish; built twenty new houses; repaired the church, and,
the better to prevent thieving, and to check the incursions of the savages,
raised a block-house on the isthmus of Jamestown, which neither Christian nor
heathen was suffered to pass without order or permit from the President. Thirty
or forty additional acres of land were also broken up and planted; and such new
care taken of pigs and poultry that their increase became marvelous. The former
were carried to an islet, which was Hog Island, and here a block-house was also
built, and a garrison established which should give notice of any approaching
shipping. The soldiers here were not, however, left to keep the place in
idleness, but for their exercise and amusement were required to fell trees, and
split clapboards. (Ibid, pp. 293-294)

Later, Plymouth colony had similar problems, instituted similar reforms, and (you guessed it) had similar results. See here and here.

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

It is not uncommon to find atheists attacking the morality of
the Bible on the subject of slavery, and in so doing, seeking to undermine the very
foundations of the Christian faith. They observe—correctly, I might add—that
the Bible never issues an outright condemnation of slave-holding, but only
seeks to regulate its practice, thus seeming to give it tacit approval. There
are numerous provisions in the law, for instance, governing the acquisition, sale,
and treatment of slaves (e.g. Ex. 20:8-11, 17; 21:1-6; Lev. 25:39-46; Deut. 15:
12-18; etc.), but nowhere do we find an absolute prohibition stating, “You
shall not be a slave-holder.” Neither do we find such an interdiction in Jesus’
teaching, even though he must have interacted with many slaves and
slave-holders alike during the course of his ministry, and both figure
prominently in his parables (Matt. 13:24-30; 18:21-35; 21:33-41; etc.). Nor do
we find a command in any of Paul’s letters requiring masters to release their slaves,
but only admonitions to treat them well (Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22-4:1; 1 Tim.
6:1-4). We even find him sending a runaway slave back to his master (Phile. vv.
8-22).

So what
are we to make of these things? Atheist Sam Harris says that slavery is perhaps
the easiest of all moral questions, and that the Bible gets it wrong. And of
course if the Bible gets something this easy so wrong, then its teaching on
other matters is also suspect.[1] Harris seeks
to claim the moral high ground, which is rather an odd thing for an atheist to
do. In a world where God does not exist, there can be no such thing as moral
high ground, or low ground for that matter. In a world without God, there is
only a vast moral flatland, where no behavior is morally superior to another. Morality
is a word signifying nothing. If God does not exist, human beings are, to quote
Bertrand Russell, nothing more than “accidental collocations of atoms.”[2] And what
does it matter really if one
accidental collocation of atoms should happen to capture and enslave another?
The most an atheist can say about it is, “I don’t like it.” What he cannot say is, “It is wrong.” He can state his preference if he wishes; but his worldview
does not permit him to make a moral judgment.

What
is the Bible’s stance on slavery? We will address the subject in the following order:

What is a slave?

Unlawful enslavement

Man-stealing

Lawful slavery

To alleviate the effects of
poverty

To punish criminal behavior

To punish and restrain enemy
nations

Female slaves

Foreign slaves

Treatment of slaves

Manumission

Summary and Conclusion

What is a Slave?

The Hebrew word for slave is derived from a verb
meaning to work. Thus, a slave is a
worker, and he is acquired for this purpose. However, under Biblical law, a
slave differs from an ordinary hired
worker in that the slave becomes a member of his master’s household (cf. Gen. 14:14;
15:2-3; 17:12-13, 23, 27; 24:2; Lev. 22:11; etc.).[3]

Unlawful Enslavement

Biblical law neither approves of nor condemns slavery per se. Some forms are permitted, others forbidden. The distinguishing
feature between them lies in the manner in which a person is reduced to the
status of slave. Unlawful enslavement takes place when someone is forced into it
against his will and without deserving it for crimes committed. Thus, the Bible
in no uncertain terms condemns the practice of kidnapping for the purpose of
turning free men into slaves.

Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of
him, shall be put to death (Ex. 21:16;
cf. Deut. 24:7).

The
severity of the punishment is indicative of how grievous this sin is in the
eyes of God. He reckons “man-stealing” a crime punishable by death.
Surprisingly, Harris fails to mention this passage.[4]
Paul alludes to it, however, in his first letter to Timothy.

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the
lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and
profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the
sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers [lit., man-stealers]
(1 Tim 1:8-10)

These
prohibitions against man-stealing apply to private individuals as well as to
criminal gangs, and even to rogue nations that make war for the purpose of
capturing free men and making them slaves.

Lawful Slavery

Being kidnapped was not the only means by which someone
in Israel might have become a slave. Biblical law, in fact, recognizes three morally
justified scenarios in which one might have been reduced to this unfortunate
status.

Alleviation of Poverty

The first of these was for the purpose of alleviating
the effects of poverty. If a man had become so poor that he was unable to
provide for himself, or was unable to repay a loan, he might sell himself as a
slave to a wealthy neighbor (Lev. 25:39; Deut. 15:12). In this arrangement, the
buyer assumed the responsibility of providing for the impoverished man and his
family. In return, the man worked for the buyer in order to earn his keep. At
the end of six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12), or in the year of Jubilee (Lev.
25:40)—whichever came first—he was to be set free. During his time of
servitude, he was to be treated mildly, like a hired servant, not harshly, as
if held against his will. This was, after all, a voluntary arrangement (though once entered, both parties were
legally bound to fulfill the terms of the agreement). This arrangement might be
thought of as a privately run, work-based welfare program, regulated by divine
law. When the man’s term of service came to an end, the law required that his
master supply him generously with the means to begin life anew.

When you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go
empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your
threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give to him (Deut.
15:13-14)

This
was a compassionate arrangement that was mutually beneficial to master and
slave alike. The master had the service of a grateful man whom he rescued from
poverty; the poor man’s needs were met, and he would presumably learn the
skills and develop the character traits necessary to live successfully as a
free man. If he preferred, however, he might choose to continue as a slave in
his master’s household.

But if he says to you, “I will not go out from you,” because
he loves you and your household, since he is well-off with you, then you shall
take an awl, and put it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your
slave forever (Deut. 15:16-17)[5]

Most
people, I should think, would be glad to regain their freedom once they had
recovered from poverty; but it is conceivable, given their kindly treatment,
that some might prefer the security of slavery to the responsibilities of freedom.

Punishment of Criminal Behavior

The same arrangement might be
made in the case of a man who came by his debt through criminal behavior. It is
said of a thief, “He shall surely pay [i.e.,
pay back what he had stolen, plus an additional amount as a penalty]. If he has
nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft” (Ex. 22:3). The same principles
applied in cases with other forms of criminal or negligent behavior resulting
in financial loss. Biblical law regards the wrongdoer as having a moral and
legal obligation to compensate the victim (e.g.,
Ex. 21:33-34; 22:6). If he did not have the means to do so, he might be sold
into slavery, with his purchase price going to his victim.[6]

To Punish and Restrain Enemy Nations

Another scenario in which slavery was recognized under
Biblical law involves captives taken in war. The question of what to do with
prisoners of war has often proved to be a vexing one. Releasing them, even
after a formal end to hostilities, involves the risk that they will take up
arms again. In order to avoid this, some victors have employed a policy of “no
mercy” and have simply killed their captives. Others have chosen to put them to
forced labor as state slaves or sell them to foreign nations.[7] Biblical
law permitted this (Deut. 20:10-11). This was a more merciful option than
killing them, was less risky than releasing them, and could help toward the
recovery of some of the costs of war.

Female Slaves

In the same way that a man in the Israel might have
sold himself as a slave to alleviate
the effects of poverty, so he might have sold a son or a daughter (Neh. 5:1-5).
The same provisions applied with regard to the time of service (i.e., release in the seventh year)
(Deut. 15:12; cf. Jer. 34:8-22). In some cases, however, special provisions
were made for a daughter: the
arrangement might include a promise of marriage (Ex. 21:7-11). If a man’s
poverty was so great that he was unable to provide for his daughter, he might
sell her as a slave with a view to becoming her master’s wife. This is what it
means when it says that the purchaser “designated her for himself” (Ex. 21:8), i.e., he promised to take her as his
wife when she should come of age. Or, instead of designating her for himself,
he might designate her for his son (v. 9). Contrary to what some have alleged,
there is nothing in the text suggesting that she was sold as a sex-slave for
her master.[8]
She was most likely charged with the household duties common to daughters. This
was, in fact, a form of betrothal. The medieval Jewish scholar, Maimonides
says, “A Hebrew handmaid might not be sold but to one who laid himself under
obligations to espouse her to himself or to his son, when she was fit to be
betrothed.”[9]

A
male Hebrew slave was to “go out” after six years of service. Not so the female
slave in question (Ex. 21:7b).[10] She
entered the arrangement with a promise of marriage. If her master changed his
mind and decided not to marry her because “she does not please her master” (v.
8), he was guilty of a breach of faith (v. 8). To send her out as a young
single woman with no means of support would have been an act of cruelty. She was
to continue to be provided for in her master’s house, and he was to “deal with
her as [kindly and affectionately as] with a daughter” (v. 9). I take this to
include an effort to find a suitable husband for her. “If he takes another wife
[instead of her] to himself [or for his son] he shall not diminish her food,
her clothing, or her marital rights”(Ex.
21:10). The Hebrew word for “marital rights” means “dwelling” or “habitation.”
Some understand this as a euphemism for sexual relations and suppose that the
girl has been living, not as her master’s betrothed, but as his concubine. It
is better, however, to take the word in its basic meaning of “dwelling,” and regard
her not as a concubine, but a bride in waiting. If her master, however, should
decide against marrying her, and take another woman as his wife instead, he
must not diminish her food, her clothing, or her living arrangements. He is
bound by his original agreement. He may not take what was pledged for her
support and give it to another whom he finds more pleasing.[11]

Foreign Slaves

Unlike
Hebrew slaves, who must be released in the seventh year, foreign slaves might
be kept in perpetuity and even passed on to one’s heirs. They might be
purchased from other nations or from the resident aliens within the borders of
Israel (Lev. 25:44-46).

The
apparent harshness of this law must be viewed in light of the law as a whole as
it regards resident aliens. Like native Israelites, resident aliens could not
be enslaved, except as a punishment for crime or in order to pay a debt, and only
after a formal conviction in a court of law. On the contrary, strangers were to
be treated with kindness and consideration (Lev. 19:33-34). They were to be
given access to the gleanings of Israel (Lev. 19:9-10; Deut. 24:19-21). Strict
warnings were given against oppressing them (Ex. 22:21; 23:9; Lev. 19:33; cf.
Mal. 3:5). They were to be given rest on the Sabbath day (Ex. 20:12; 23:19). They
had the same legal standing in court as native Israelites (Deut. 1:16; 24:17-18).
They had the same right of asylum in the cities of refuge (Num. 35:15). They
were not to be defrauded of their wages (Deut. 24:14-15). They could own Hebrew
slaves (Lev. 25:47). And if they had been slaves in a foreign land and had
escaped, they were to be given a safe haven in Israel (Deut. 23:15-16). Resident aliens could not hold office (Deut. 17:15); but they could
serve as warriors and advisors (2 Sam. 18:2; 23:39). If they were converted
from their pagan religion and worshiped the God of Abraham, they were admitted into
the full religious privileges of Israel (Ex. 12:43-49; Num. 9:14). Full rights
of citizenship, including the right to hold a governing office, could be
granted in subsequent generations (Deut. 23:2-8).

What,
then, was the rationale for allowing foreigners to be held as slaves in
perpetuity? It may have been to encourage such slaves to convert to the worship
of Yahweh, and thus be entitled to the terms governing the release of Hebrew
slaves (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).

Treatment of Slaves

Biblically sanctioned slavery did not regard the person but the labor of the slave as the property of the master. This is an
important distinction. A slave-owner was not permitted to do whatever he wanted
with his slave. It was required that masters allow their slaves to rest on the
Sabbath and on other holy days (Ex. 20:8-11; etc.). If a master mistreated a
slave so that permanent bodily damage resulted, the slave was to be set free
(Ex. 21:26-27). If he
killed his slave, the slave was to be “avenged” (i.e., the slave-owner was to be executed) (Ex. 21:20-21).

Manumission

Manumission might take place
in a variety of ways. As mentioned above, the law imposed a limit on the number
of years a Hebrew slave might be required to serve, i.e., six years. At the end of this, he was to be allowed to “go
out free, for nothing” (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12). More than this, his master was
to send him away laden with livestock, grain, and wine (Deut. 15:14).

A slave was to
be released early, however, if the year of Jubilee should arrive before the
completion of six years (Lev. 25:39-41). He might be released early, even apart
from the year of Jubilee, if he should be redeemed by his relatives (Lev.
25:47-49). He might even prosper sufficiently so as to redeem himself (Lev.
25:49).[12]

In Exodus
21:3-4 the issue of manumission is considered vis-à-vis the slave’s marital status and what should become of his
wife and children when he is set free. There were three possible circumstances
under which a slave’s manumission might take place: (1) The slave might have been unmarried when
he became a slave and continued unmarried throughout his years of service, in
which case there was no one else to set free; (2) the slave might have been
married when he began his service, in which case his wife was to be released
with him; or (3) the slave might have been unmarried when he began to serve,
but at some point during his years of service he might have been given a wife
by his master. In this case, the wife and any children born to her were to
continue in the master’s service, and the man alone was to be set free. This is
not to say that they would no longer be married, but that he would be free, and his wife and children would continue to be
subject to their master. “This may appear oppressive, but it was an equitable
consequence of the possession of property in slaves at all.”[13]
The master had a financial investment in the woman, and she would remain a
slave under his authority until her newly freed husband could manage to redeem
her. Her original purchase price naturally included her potential to bear
children, and so the children also remained under the master’s authority until such
time as they were redeemed.[14]

Summary and Conclusion

Let us summarize. Under Biblical law, slavery was permitted[15] for the
following reasons: (1) as a means of
alleviating the effects of poverty, (2) to make restitution for financial
losses caused by criminal or negligent behavior, and (3) to punish and restrain
enemy nations. In all of these scenarios, the slave-holder had a legal claim
upon the fruit of his slave’s labor.[16] Under
no circumstances did Biblical law condone capturing or kidnapping free and
innocent people in order to make slaves of them. Further, slaves had certain
rights and protections that could not be denied to them.

This is slavery as it existed in Israel, regulated by
the law of God.[17]
And it is altogether different from how slavery was practiced elsewhere in the ancient
Near East or in the Greco-Roman world. In these cultures, slaves had little to
no legal protection. Not only the labor, but the bodies and souls of men were
regarded as the property of their masters, who could do with them whatever they
pleased, even kill them, without any legal repercussions. Slavery in Israel, as
sanctioned in the Bible, was quite different from this, and quite different,
too, from the slavery of the antebellum South, which had a racial component to
it that has greatly complicated race relations in the U.S. ever since. To
compare the slavery of the Bible, then, with slavery as it has existed
elsewhere (and still exists in the Muslim world) is to compare apples and
oranges. There are far more differences than similarities.

We should conclude by observing that the Bible clearly favors
freedom over slavery. Paul writes to the Corinthians, “Were you a slave when
called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail
yourself of the opportunity.) (1 Cor. 7:21). In other words, “Gain your freedom
if can lawfully do so.” A little later he says, “You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men” (v. 23).

Slavery is by no means a creational ordinance. It is a state
of affairs that did not enter the world until the fall of man. Apart from sin, there
would never have been a need for it. Under Biblical law it was a corrective or remedial measure.

[4] This is a glaring
omission. So is his failure to mention the several other ways (distinguished in
Scripture and discussed below), by which someone might have been reduced to
slavery. Perhaps we should not be too surprised, however, by these omissions.
In reading him, one gets the impression that Harris is not very interested in
actually understanding the Scriptures or the real-life situations they address,
and even less interested in representing them fairly.

[5] The pierced ear was a
permanent visible sign of his pledge. The procedure had to be done with a
priest as a witness in order to guarantee its voluntary nature (Ex. 21:6).

[6] This invites a
comparison with the modern prison system, which is a type of enslavement, but
without the work requirement, and thus without the personal and social benefits
of restitution to the victim and the character development of the thief through
productive labor and the daily oversight of a successful man. Cf. Eph. 4:28, “Let
the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his
own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.”

[7] The problem of what to
do with captives of war has been one of the dilemmas that the U.S. has faced
with the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. The rationale for keeping them
locked up is to prevent them from continuing their fight against the West either
in terrorist acts or on the battlefield. In fact, a good number of these
prisoners who have been released have reentered the fight. According to a National
Intelligence summary report, it is estimated that nearly thirty percent of
those released have done so: http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Reports%20and%20Pubs/GTMO.pdf
(Accessed March 15, 2015)

[10] Although as noted
above, she might have entered this service without a promised marriage, in
which case she was released after six years of service (Deut. 15:12).

[11] See the discussions in
Umberto Moshe David Cassuto, A Commentary
on Exodus (Skokie, IL: Varda Books,
2005), p. 268-269; and Shalom M. Paul, Studies
in the Book of the Covenant in Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law (Eugene,
OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2006),
pp. 59-61

[12] This serves to show
how mildly slaves were to be treated under Biblical law that they could
conceivably purchase their own freedom.

[14] Here and elsewhere the
law recognizes the financial investment a master has tied up in his slaves and
requires that he be duly compensated for their emancipation, either by the
slave’s labor over a set period of time, or by a payment of money. This was how
Great Britain finally abolished slavery throughout its realms; the British
government compensated slave owners. This was an equitable solution to the
problem, and one consistent with Biblical law. Similar plans were put forward
in the United States but failed to garner enough support to be implemented. It
took, instead, rivers of blood to put an end to it.

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

When our iniquity
had come to its full height, and it was clear beyond all mistaking that
retribution in the form of punishment and death must be looked for, the hour
arrived in which God had determined to make known from then onwards His
loving-kindness and His power. How surpassing is the love and tenderness of
God! in that hour, instead of hating us and rejecting us and remembering our
wickednesses against us, He showed how long-suffering He is. He bore with us,
and in pity He took our sins upon Himself and gave His own Son as a ransom for
us - the Holy for the wicked, the Sinless for sinners, the Just for the unjust,
the Incorrupt for the corrupt, the Immortal for the mortal. For was there,
indeed, anything except His righteousness that could have availed to cover our
sins? In whom could we, in our lawlessness and ungodliness, have been made
holy, but in the Son of God alone? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable working! O
benefits unhoped for! - that the wickedness of multitudes should thus be hidden
in the One holy, and the holiness of One should sanctify the countless wicked! (The Epistle to Diognetus chap. 9)

Friday, January 2, 2015

There
are many defects of the modern mind, but surely one of the most serious is its
being conditioned to prize mere functional utility at the expense of beauty. When
we consider the value of something, we almost always do so in terms of its
usefulness. What’s it good for?What
function does it perform?Is it
efficient?

The
question we rarely seem to ask is, “Is it beautiful?” How often do we purchase
something simply for the pure aesthetic delight we take in it? Are we not inclined to think such an expense a waste of
money?

Yet
God has given us senses that appreciate beauty – sights, sounds, and smells
that have a pleasing effect. Sadly, however, Christians often fail to cultivate
their aesthetic sense. It is thought to be unspiritual to “waste time” on such
things. But God’s delight in things beautiful is displayed in his handiwork. Think
of the varieties of color he splashes on the sky at sunset, the thousands of
hues of green in nature (with none of them clashing), the sparkling heavens at night,
the smell of honeysuckle, the sound of birds singing their songs to God, the
taste of a good wine. To a modern utilitarian it might seem that God wasted an
awful lot of creative energy on things that serve no useful purpose other than
to ravish our senses. But God was pleased not only to ensure our survival in
the world by providing us with what is necessary, but also to ensure our
enjoyment of it by providing us with what is beautiful and pleasing.

Created
as we are in God’s image, we are drawn
to the beautiful, and unless our aesthetic sense has been stifled by a crass
utilitarian brain-washing, we pursue
the beautiful, not merely in purely artistic pursuits like painting and
sculpture, but in everyday ordinary activities, like how we dress, how we
speak, how we set the table, how we worship.

Below
are some quotations from various sources that might help us recover a sense of
the importance of beauty.

“Rachel was beautiful in form and appearance” (Gen. 29:17).

“And you shall make holy garments for
Aaron your brother, for glory and for
beauty” (Ex. 28:2).

“See, I have called by name Bezalel the
son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with ability and
intelligence, with knowledge and all craftsmanship, to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver, and bronze, in
cutting stones for setting, and in carving wood, to work in every craft”
(Ex. 31:1-5).

“Sound theology leads always to the love
of beauty. When there is no love of beauty, we may say, reasoning modus tollens, that there is no sound
theology” (Douglas Wilson, Angels in the
Architecture, p. 26).

“We were created to make beautiful things
- in music, in stone, on canvass, in sculpted gardens and in wonderful
buildings” (Douglas Wilson, Angels in the
Architecture, p. 31).

“Beauty is never ‘necessary,’
‘functional,’ or ‘useful.’ And when,
expecting someone whom we love, we put a beautiful tablecloth on the table and
decorate it with candles and flowers, we do all this not out of necessity, but
out of love. And the Church is love, expectation and joy… As long as Christians
will love the Kingdom of God, and not
only discuss it, they will ‘represent’ it and signify it, in art and beauty”
(Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the
World, p. 30).

Note: Angels in the Architecture by Douglas Jones and Douglas Wilson has been instrumental in shaping my views on this subject.

Thursday, January 1, 2015

In
Numbers 16 we read about a man by the name of Korah, who along with some men
from the tribe of Reuben, accused Moses of exalting himself in Israel. “They
assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron and said to them,
‘You have gone too far! For all in the congregation are holy, every one of
them, and the Lord is among them.
Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?” (16:3) It adds an interesting
twist to the story when we realize that this Korah was Moses’ cousin. Their
fathers were brothers.

The
charge that Korah brought against Moses and Aaron had to do with the greater
access to God they enjoyed with respect to officiating in the tabernacle. Only
they and Aaron’s sons were allowed to serve as priests. Because of this Korah
accused them of “exalting themselves above the assembly of the Lord,” claiming that “all in the
congregation are holy, every one of them.” Psalm 106 says, “Men in the camp
were jealous of Moses and Aaron, the holy one of the Lord” (Psalm 106:16).

Two
things might be said in response to this. First, Korah overlooked the fact that
this prerogative was not something that Moses and Aaron claimed for themselves
on their own initiative, but something that was given to them by God. As the
writer of Hebrews says, “No one takes this honor [of the priesthood] for himself,
but only when called by God, just as Aaron was” (Heb. 5:4). The priesthood was
a divine arrangement. Therefore, in finding fault with Moses about this, Korah
was finding fault with God.

Second,
Korah himself enjoyed a highly privileged position. Not only was he from the
tribe of Levi, thus possessing the right to share in the privileges of that
tribe’s unique calling (Num. 1:50-54; 18:1-7, 21-32), but he was also from the
clan of Kohath, and as such had greater access to God than the two other clans
of Levi (Gershon and Merari). The clan of Kohath had been given the great honor
of caring for the holiest items of the tabernacle in Israel’s march through the
wilderness (3:31-32; 4:4-20; cf. 7:9). Korah, in fact, had everything but the
priesthood. But this was not enough for him. As long as there was something to be had that was off limits
to him, he would not be satisfied, especially if someone else was given access
to it. Korah challenged Moses on the point of fairness. “It’s not fair that you
have something I don’t have!” He was true egalitarian.

Dathan
and Abriam, the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, joined Korah in his
rebellion. They were from the tribe of Reuben (16:1). Reuben camped to the
south of the sanctuary, the same side as Korah and the Kohathites (cf. 2:10-11; 3:29). Thus, Korah
and his associates and the men of Reuben would have had “ample opportunity to
commiserate” with each other in their grievances against Moses.[1]

The men
of Reuben may have had an additional objection to the ordering of Israelite
society. They may have objected to the fact that their tribe had not been given
the traditional right of the firstborn (Gen. 49:3-4).

Moses,
however, upheld God’s right to appoint whomever he pleased to the priestly
office, and likewise to deny that honor to whomever he pleased.

When Moses heard it, he
fell on his face, and he said to Korah and all his company, “In the morning the
Lord will show who is his, and who
is holy, and will bring him near to him. The one whom he chooses he will bring
near to him… You have gone too far, sons of Levi!” (16:4, 7)

Moses
turns the charge around. It was not he
who had gone too far, but Korah.

Hear now, you sons of
Levi: is it too small a thing for you
that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to
bring you near to himself, to do service in the tabernacle of the Lord and stand before the congregation to
minister to them, and that he has brought you near him and all your brothers
the sons of Levi with you? And would you seek the priesthood also? (vv. 8-10)

Korah
was ungrateful for the high honor the Lord had been pleased to confer upon him.
He considered it “too small a thing” and grasped for more than what God was
pleased to give.[2]
This is very instructive. It could be said to be the essence of all sin.
Consider Adam and Eve. They had been blessed beyond measure: created in the image of God, called into his
fellowship, enjoying the delights of Paradise. One thing only was prohibited to
them—eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They could eat
from all the other trees in the garden except from it. And this is where the devil focused his attention. He aroused their
discontent so that they overstepped their bounds and reached for a position
which God had denied to them.

This was the great sin of the king of Babylon, too,
who said, “I will ascend to heaven; I will sit on the mount of the assembly in
the far reaches of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I
will make myself like the Most High” (Isa. 14:12-14).

Jealousy
is an insidious evil which can manifest itself both personally and politically.
(Think the Occupy Wall Street movement or Progressivism generally.) Envy of the
success or privilege of others is base, although it has the advantage of
appearing virtuous when indulged in in the name of fairness or equality.

We
should do our best, with God’s help, to cultivate a spirit of thankfulness and
contentment for all the good we enjoy, even if it is not as abundant as we
might wish (Phil. 4:12) or as abundant as what others enjoy. Rather than being
jealous of their good fortune, we should rejoice with them in it (Rom. 12:15).
Not everyone is called to be rich. Not everyone is called to positions of great
influence. God distributes his gifts as he sees fit (1 Cor. 12:4-6).

For not
from the east or from the west

and not from the wilderness comes lifting
up,

but it
is God who executes judgment,

putting down one and lifting up another
(Ps. 75:6-7)

This is
not an excuse for passivity but rather a call to beware of envy and to seek
contentment in God’s providence.

[2] Later Uzziah would fall into the same
transgression. Though he had the great honor of being king, he was discontent
that he did not also possess the priesthood and suffered the terrible
consequences of his envy (2 Chron. 26:16-21).